A House Divided?

Here's another article, this time from Le Figaro, on Frigide Barjot's reluctance to attend the Manif Pour Tous on Sunday. The information is similar to that of a previous post:

"As things are now, I do not think I will go to the demonstration because the threats hanging over me, over my person, are still very much present," announced Frigide Barjot, spokewoman of the Manif Pour Tous movement.

She added that her decision was not "definitive". "Without a guarantee that I can speak with complete freedom of speech, I prefer to say for now that I won't go and create problems for the demonstration."

Note: She makes the above comments in the video below.

"There are very grave threats hanging over me," she repeated to the reporters. "It is my person that is now in danger," adding that she receives text messages from "violent people" saying: "You will not talk about a civil union."

Note: Barjot has been advocating a civil union on her own behalf, since the Manif Pour Tous does not endorse such a measure. France already has a civil union called the PACS.

Frigide Barjot nonetheless repeated her opposition to the law on homosexual marriage and encouraged "everybody to go to the demonstration, now that the Interior Minister has given assurances that there would be a perfectly competent security force." She indicated that she is being guarded by two security agents.

Le Figaro readers have little regard for her:

- In the end she'll come. That way all the cameras will be turned onto her. She took lessons from Ségolène Royal who always comes last in order not to share top billing with anyone. Poor things, what they won't do for a little fame.

- In my opinion the real threats against her do not come from the French Spring but from the Socialist winter.

- This is good news. If she's going to continue to play around with Manuel Gas (i.e. Manuel Valls), it is better that she not be there. This woman is a disgrace to True France.

In the video below the reporter accuses le Printemps Français of threatening Barjot. We then get a glimpse of Béatrice Bourges, head of le Printemps Français, who dismisses such charges.



- Reporter: Despite her two body guards Frigide Barjot will not participate on Sunday. She takes the threats against her very seriously. But it's not the only thing that worries her.

- Barjot: Without a guarantee that I can speak with complete freedom of speech, I prefer to say for now that I won't go and create problems for the demonstration.

- Reporter: Prevented from speaking by the other opponents of homosexual marriage - the radicals of le Printemps Français for example, here in the middle of a sabotage operation. (Note: We see activists pasting up posters against homosexual marriage.) With the other organizers of the Manif Pour Tous the rupture is complete. They reject en bloc the civil union that Frigide Barjot has always supported.

Note: At 48" into the video we see Béatrice Bourges who speaks of the movement as one big family.

- Béatrice Bourges: Families fight, then they make up. What difference does it make? I wouldn't say there are divisions, there are individual quarrels. But we all agree on the objectives.

- Reporter: The same objectives, but methods that are not always compatible. Already some organizations intend to demonstrate separately, such as the Nationalist Youth and the fundamentalists of Civitas.

Manuel Valls vs the French Spring

Read this article from France 24, sent by a reader, for a glimpse at how the English-language world is perceiving events in France. Here is an excerpt in which Manuel Valls (left) reacts to what he claims are threats from the group known as le Printemps Français (the French Spring):

"This is a call to violence,” Valls told France Info, adding that there had even been a number of death threats, which he does not “take lightly”.

"Justice will have to act because it is intolerable that in the Republic there can be these messages of hate,” he continued. “There is no place for groups that challenge the Republic, democracy and which also attack individuals.”

With a name meant to mirror that given to the uprisings in the Arab world in recent years, the French Spring has sought to adopt the revolutionary mantle among the various groups standing against France’s legalisation of gay marriage.

The movement has been blamed for increasingly violent protests against gay marriage in recent months, including an attempt to occupy the Champs-Elysées in Paris in March, defying a police ban.

This has led others in the anti-gay marriage camp to distance themselves from the French Spring and its leader, Béatrice Bourges.

“Béatrice Bourges is no longer a member of our collective,” Frigide Barjot, the French comedian-turned-figurehead of the anti-gay marriage protests, said in a recent interview with France’s Le Parisien newspaper.

Read more.

The French version is here, and at countless other French sites.

I wrote an article on le Printemps Français back on March 24, the day of the big Manif Pour Tous during which tear gas was used for the first time on the demonstrators, including children. At the time, I knew almost nothing about the movement which was a separate component of the Manif Pour Tous. If you re-read my article you will see that my major complaint was that the demands of le Printemps Français were based on the notion of a "social contract", a concept from the French Revolution, as opposed to the more primordial concept of divine law or the basic indisputable natural law of the male-female couple. I pointed out that there was an ideological fracture between the Catholic group Civitas and le Printemps Français, and that the latter veered to the left (or so it seemed).

Possibly it is time to look again at this movement, since ironically it has been labeled "extreme right" by the Socialist government that is now in power.

At the Printemps Français website there is a text that attempts to explain the nine principles constituting the modus operandi of the group:

1 - Transgression:

Transgression of the rules is a legitimate mode of action when used to reveal the government lies and the injustice of the new moral codes it is trying to impose on us. We are not among those who confuse legality with legitimacy, or the instruments of power with a well-founded power. (…)

Note: We call this "civil disobedience".

2 - Non-Violence:

Our second mode of intervention is non-violent action. The State appropriates repression. It gases women and children, falsifies the numbers of demonstrators, snuffs out eye-witness accounts. We oppose this with peaceful, determined, joyous and insolent actions. The emotion aroused by non-violence serves as its persuasive argument. Violence, be it police or activist, is an insult to civilization.

Note: I don't like the word "joyous" here. This is not a festivity.

3 - Creation of events:

Our third mode of action is the creation of concrete situations. The event provoked becomes the media of activism. We must seek the political efficiency of testimony, even if we stage the event. It means disturbing the conventional codification of information in order to create a different meaning. The new political imperative is to place the event at the center of the debate. This is the way we will break the encirclement of the media.

Note: I'm afraid I don't grasp entirely the meaning of the above. They "create" an event - such as a demonstration? They repeat the event to exert permanent pressure. Eye-witness accounts of the event replace the media's spin, eventually leading to a more accurate perception of reality.

4 - A fleeting presence. We are visible to all, we speak during the day, then we disappear, before reappearing again. (…)

5 - Mobility. (…) Confronted with an authoritarian, isolated power that uses police violence we oppose networks, adaptability and fluidness. (…)

6 - Language. We must promote our values with creative but clear words that are reproducible, repeated and transmitted. (…) We must win the battle of ideas.

7 - Decentralized action. Our strategy is to act within civil society, in order to provoke, like a ferment, a chain reaction, and to give it a new flavor: to give it a sense of freedom. (…)

8 - Autonomy and Loyalty. We do not think it's necessary to define at the outset the form of the final action. We wish to preserve the flexibility necessary to espouse the dynamics of our rise to power. The principle of subsidiarity must prevail.

Note: I think this means that each component of le Printemps Français takes whatever action is necessary without orders from a central committee. At the same time, the components must not jeopardize the essential goals of the movement.

9 - Complementarity. We are not rivals of or a substitute for the larger movement from which we derive. (…) We are complements, not competitors. (…)

Note: These nine points are rather subtle and complex. I hope the leaders can just define a reasonably attainable goal, and follow through. There does not seem to be anything recognizably left-wing or right-wing about their operations. They want to be a sort of underground that is not invisible, a permanent source of trouble for the government and a vector for enlightenment to counteract the media distortions.

The head of le Printemps Français is Béatrice Bourges. I hope to post a short article about her. Information is not plentiful.

Below, one of many photos from the website.

Will Frigide Barjot stay home?

Frigide Barjot may not attend the Manif Pour Tous on May 26. Some say it's just as well. A short article at the blog of Catholic writer Jeanne Smits explains:

She is using Dominique Venner's suicide as a pretext and denounces the attacks by the "extreme right" as the basis for her fear of "violence" from those who do not agree with her. She has forgotten that the real disagreement is with her own militant stand against "homophobia" - her war cry - and with her advocacy of a "civil alliance".

"I am responsible for millions of people in this country," she insists, and asks for "guarantees" of protection.

Jeanne Smits provides a link to a radio interview with Barjot in which she expresses her anxiety about possible violence and emphasizes that the attacks on her and on persons close to her, by the "extreme right", have worsened. She says that she is hesitant to attend the Manif, and cannot say with certainty that she will be there on Sunday.

Interior Minister Manuel Valls sends assurances that Frigide will be protected:

"I cannot hide my concern over these identitarian groups of the extreme right who were present at various demonstrations and who attacked the police with violence. There are among them very dangerous, very determined individuals."

Le Salon Beige points out that no car has been torched, no policeman injured, no windows broken during the demonstrations.

Frigide Barjot, however great her personal success in organizing these demonstrations, has alienated many, including the traditional Catholics and others who can no longer put up with her ostentatious anti-homophobia agenda, an obvious attempt to prove to the media that she is really the best friend homosexuals ever had and a relentless enemy of the "extreme right", by which she often means the perfectly peaceful Front National. Catholic writer Bernard Antony, who long ago lost patience with her inappropriate, unwelcome displays of political correctness, has labeled her "calamitous". Here is his latest article, written on behalf of himself and his association AGRIF:

We will be at the Manif Pour Tous. We will not be with Frigide Barjot whom the other ineffective leaders were unwilling or unable to control. She diverts the objective of the Manif Pour Tous in her outrageous idolatry of homosexuals and her complicities with Islamists.

Obviously we will not be with the "extremist groups". She has provided much grist for their mill through her aberrant behavior. She puts her own spin on the issues at stake in order to show off for the media and she throws herself into the protective arms of Manuel Valls.

It is an indecent scorpion's sting meant to destroy an immense public movement that she wanted to appropriate for herself.

We will be in Paris this not very promising late Spring, because we have decided, come what may, to be with the great masses of our fellow patriots in their indignation.

At the morning Mass we will pray for France humiliated and betrayed. We will spend the day speaking to other demonstrators, telling them that nothing can ever be reconstructed without the emergence of a great political movement defending the values of the Decalogue and the Christian soul of France.

Below, some recent photos culled from the hundreds posted at Le Salon Beige of Frenchmen all over the world who will never give up.

First, a "welcoming committee" greets Prime Minister Ayrault in Evreux:

In front of Socialist Party headquarters in Paris on the rue Solferino:

And on a mountain top in Bolivia:

Thoughts on Dominique Venner

The reactions to Dominique Venner's suicide are greatly varied, displaying compassion and understanding, but also severity toward Venner for doing such a terrible thing, and toward his sympathizers for not realizing what a basically evil man he was.  I admit to knowing little about him until this occurred. I had heard the name and read snippets of his writings at various sites, but I was not familiar with his character or his work. I do not personally want to enter into a discussion of suicide, except to repeat what I said in a comment, namely that I think he may have done more harm than good to the cause of French resistance. Here is Yves Daoudal's uncompromising criticism of Venner's deed which he considers a provocation. This post elicited forty-five persuasive comments from readers.

Dominique Venner committed suicide by shooting a bullet through his mouth before the high altar of the Notre-Dame cathedral in Paris.

I found him very unlikeable. And it isn't because he was "pagan", since I know pagans whom I like. Behind his paganism, there was, in truth, as one can see in his final message at his blog (before his suicide letter), but one can see it also in his manner of relating history, a total atheism, hence an absolute, hateful rejection of all that is religious. There was in him something satanic. That is how I perceived it. And his death confirms it.

The staging of his death shows his will to blaspheme. Suicide in a consecrated place is a double crime: a murder and a profanation. It is a satanic provocation, both abject and pathetic. The cathedral remains, God too. But Venner has disappeared. The act of revolt against God, that tries to be spectacular, in reality has no consistency. No human consistency , and no historical consistency.

But the fate of his soul is terrifying.

There was a strong reaction from his readers many of whom answered him forcefully and persuasively, whatever their opinion. I can only give a tiny sampling, somewhat edited:

- I think you would have done better to abstain.

- DV's thinking owes much to German paganism at the very least. He greatly influenced anti-Christian associations. Monsieur Daoudal is right many times over. I find nothing to criticize in his analysis. Let's look closely at those who rush to praise this man. It's very revealing.

- No, Monsieur Daoudal, it is not a blasphemous act. It's an act of love and hope even if he did not believe. I hope he will be welcomed.

Note: One of the major questions the readers debate is whether a suicide can still hope for divine mercy.

One reader who remains anonymous claims to have known Dominique Venner. The OAS was the clandestine French army mobilized to defend French Algeria:

- (…) I completely approve of your article on the death of Dominique Venner. I knew the man well when I was a student. It was in my house that he hid for several weeks when the police were after him as an active sympathizer of the OAS (he was not really a member I'm sure, despite what they say). He was really pagan, but it was a modern paganism particularly hateful of Christ, despite his austere morals. Secretly he was a great admirer of Hitler, whom he never reproached except that he failed. He profoundly, viscerally, despised Christianity and regarded Christians as weaklings. He detested the catholic nature of Christianity, preferring the exalted notion of national tribalism. What he liked in chivalry, was absolutely not the chivalric side, Christianized, but the dark side, brutal, almost perverse. (…) Like you, I believe that his deed was an ultimate provocation, a final act of defiance at this Christ whom he doubly hated as a Jew and as protector of the weak. He often said to me, in the years between 1959 and 1962 (…) that it would be necessary one day to resume Hitler's work and to succeed in annihilating Jews and Christianity. This man's soul was in the hands of the devil, even though he always showed a friendly manner. I hesitate to say "may his soul rest in peace"!

Note: A reminder that this is an anonymous comment. It may be true, false, partially true, biased or based on emotional factors. We never know for sure who sends comments. These are terrible accusations.

The next comment is addressed to Yves Daoudal:

- Sir, this article adds nothing to your reputation. It is like kicking a corpse. Monsieur Venner's act, and I have no intellectual affinity with him, is perhaps grandiloquent or even grotesque, but his motives are in no way low or contemptible. At least he acted in conformity with his thinking. How many Catholics can claim to do as much? As for pagans, I feel closer to an old Roman who respects the rituals and the gods than I do to these little atheist pleasure-seekers who make up the majority of our contemporaries and who have no sense of the sacred, not even pagan sacred. The account by the reader on his relationship with Monsieur Venner strikes me as completely out of place. It is more than kicking a corpse, it is spitting on him. R.I.P.

- The account by the reader is in no way out of place; it supports what we felt instinctively about this man, namely his satanic and Hitlerian aspect, and his rebellion against God.

- You are not God, so far as I know.

Note: Father Claude Proux, a chaplain, writes to Yves Daoudal:

- Monsieur Daoudal. Thank you for the very relevant comment on Dominique Venner, but your last words are excessive: "The fate of his soul is terrifying". Yes, we must repeat that 1) to commit suicide is a very grave sin 2) that in this case to do it in a church in front of everyone aggravates the fault 3) but the mercy of the Savior is infinite… if you open your heart to him. Monsieur Venner needs our prayer… Say it!

To which Yves Daoudal responds:

- Dear Father, I know well that a miracle is always possible, at the last fraction of a second…

But it is necessary to take into account the fact that Dominique Venner was fiercely anti-Christian and atheist his whole life. In a way that seemed to me to be satanic from the first moment I laid eyes on him (although his speech was very urbane…).

I hope he had a flash of lucidity at the last moment, but it would really be a miracle. I wrote without taking this very slim possibility into account, and I am changing nothing. It is not I, it is the Church that, not so long ago, refused a Christian burial to suicides. (…)

Note: There's much much more. But the essential questions have been asked: Was he in any way justified? Will any good come of this? Was his hatred of the Church due to his affinity for paganism or his disillusionment with a Church that had collaborated with the Left and later with Islam? Was this an act of despair or an act of defiance? If defiance, was it defiance of God or defiance of a Church he deemed inadequate? Answers are harder to come by than questions.

At his website, Catholic writer Bernard Antony scorns the ignorance of the media:

- The inept remarks you are hearing from the media are enough to make the constellations whinny! In their ignorance, as abysmal as it is haughty, that characterizes those whose job it is to inform, they have presented Venner as a traditionalist Catholic!

Not surprising. The media avoid details that separate fact from fantasy.

The six-minute video below is mainly for French readers, though speech is at a minimum. It shows a homage to Venner that took place at Notre-Dame cathedral on Tuesday May 21. In the beginning, deputy Jacques Bompard, who is closely associated with Marine Le Pen, though not a member of the Front National, explains why he came to Notre-Dame to pay his respects to Dominique Venner. He believes Venner killed himself in protest against the decadence of French society, and even though he does not agree with the act itself he understands the motives and feels Venner was very affected by the demonstrations against gay marriage. The rising up of the people was a sight no one thought was possible. The second speaker is Julien Rochedy, of the Front National Youth Movement, who also warns that France will die unless there is an awakening. At the reporter's question he notes the various threats hovering over the country: destruction of values, immigration, loss of sovereignty. He notes that gay marriage is just one of many threatening issues and declares everyone should have a rebellious heart as Venner did.

The rest of the video is singing against a backdrop of lighted torches.

Suicide in the Cathedral

As you probably know, since it made world-wide headlines, French writer and historian Dominique Venner, 78,  committed suicide in Notre-Dame Cathedral, before the altar, in protest against the Islamization of France.

Dominique Venner was a critic of the Church, otherwise such an act would have been unthinkable. According to Le Salon Beige readers, he was a pagan whose final deed was in defiance of God's law and Church doctrine. Some readers express sympathy for this right-wing historian who had fought bravely for France during the Algerian War and who believed firmly that the cause of French Algeria was just.

Here is Venner's suicide letter, which may have already appeared in English somewhere:

I am of sound mind and body, and fulfilled by the love of my wife and children. I love life and expect nothing beyond, except the perpetuation of my race and my spirit. Yet, at the end of this life, before immense perils for my French and European homeland, I feel I have the duty to act while I still have the strength.

I believe it is necessary to sacrifice myself in order to break the lethargy that is crushing us. I offer what remains of my life for the purpose of a protest and a foundation. I have chosen a highly symbolic site, the cathedral of Notre-Dame de Paris that I respect and admire: the one that was built by the genius of my ancestors on sites of more ancient religions, as a reminder of our immemorial origins.

While so many men become slaves to their lives, my act symbolizes an ethic of the will. I take my own life in order to awaken sleeping consciences. I revolt against fate.

Note: The above reasoning reminds me of The Stranger by Albert Camus where Meursault commits a murder as an act of will, without any real purpose or motive. Venner says he has a purpose, but if he is concerned about his country, it is hard to see how his voluntary death, his absence, can help those who remain. A Christian must yield to the will of God, the Creator and Lawgiver; a non-believer turns the human will into a god, or yields to abominable Fate.

So, if he really wanted to "revolt against fate" he would have chosen to see this crisis through, by contributing his patriotism and his knowledge to the cause of France.

I revolt against the poisons of the soul and against the invading individuals who are destroying the identities that anchor us, notably the family, the intimate base of our millenia-old civilization. While I defend the identity of all peoples in their own lands, I also revolt against the crime that aims to replace our population.

Since the dominant viewpoint is not able to escape its toxic ambiguities, it is up to Europeans to draw the consequences of this. For want of an identitarian religion which could anchor us, we have, since Homer, our own shared memory, a storehouse of all the values on which we must recast our future renaissance, breaking with the metaphysical notion of unlimitedness, a deadly source of all modern perversities ("dérives").

I ask forgiveness from all those to whom my death will cause suffering, first my wife, my children, my grand-children, and then my friends and followers. But once the shock of the pain has subsided, I do not doubt that they will all understand the meaning of my act and will transcend their pain into pride. I hope that they will come together to endure. They will find in my recent writings the prefiguration and explanation of my act.

For more information write to my publisher Pierre-Guillaume de Roux. He was not informed about my decision, but he has known me for a long time.

Note: He is not a Christian believer, but he speaks of "forgiveness" and "transcendence". Of course, it is true, that such concepts preceded Christianity. Like Camus, he seems to be unable to make a final leap, not only of faith, but of reason. Reason that expands the consciousness beyond the material earth and comes to the realization that the innate laws of nature he wants to preserve were not put there by Man, only uncovered by him.

Below, the cathedral being evacuated.

May 18, 2013: An Appeal from the Manif Pour Tous

The Manif Pour Tous, on the occasion of the promulgating of the law known as "marriage for everyone", issued the following appeal to all Frenchmen concerned about the law and its consequences for France and for civiization:

This law consecrates the abolition of the fundamental principle of marriage between a man and a woman. It implies, through full adoption for everybody, that a child presumably can be born of two men or two women; it consecrates the law of gender despite the universal nature of feminine and masculine sexual identities. It is a major upheaval of civilization!

Note: "Gender" is a term imported to France from the United States. It refers to the fantasy that a baby is born "neutral" and is free to "choose" to be a man or a woman. This "gender theory" is now being taught in French schools. 

We have not ceased, for many months, alerting Monsieur Hollande about what the stakes are. We are profoundly offended by the arrogance and the contempt displayed for months both by the president of the Republic and the ministers, the legislators and the CESE.

Note: The CESE was the ethical, social and environmental council that refused to consider a petition signed by 700,000 opponents of the law.

Although they are elected by us, the citizens of France,  and are supposed to represent us, they have totally ignored the opposition of the majority of French people to this iniquitous law.

In their arrogance, they also ignored the numerous intermediary groups that expressed their opposition, among them: the National Union of Family Associations, the Academy of Medicine, and even the Academy of Moral and Political Sciences.

This abuse of power by an executive in the hands of an ultra-minority lobby weakens the institutions of the Fifth Republic.

This law, presented as a progress for homosexuals, will engender homophobia because it holds them responsible for the "right to a child" which implies "adoption for everyone."

Today the law is official. Has the last word been said? Must hope vanish? Is defeat definitive? No!

Our opposition movement, an immense groundswell, will not stop, for the simple reason that it is born of a profound, innate refusal of a law based on the lie that makes believe that a child could have two men or two women as parents.

Contrary to what has been said - another lie among many - this law concerns all Frenchmen because every human being, tomorrow, will be vulnerable to being deprived of a father or a mother.

Our movement is the profound expression of what a tremendous number of Frenchmen are feeling: the succession of generations, the future of humanity, can only be founded on a recognition of the reality of Man.

It is why we Frenchmen will never consent to the notion that there can be spontaneous generations!

We will never consent to Medically Assisted Procreation for everyone or the legalization of Surrogate Motherhood.

We will never consent to Monsieur Hollande using French institutions for the benefit of gender ideology which is the basis of the "marriage for everyone" law.

We refuse that French politics be dictated by a lobby that does not even represent the totality of homosexuals, much less the totality of French people.

We refuse that French politics turn away from the essentials: the urgent concerns of citizens who are facing today a dramatic economic and social situation.

We defend respect for true democracy: an upheaval of civilization such as this cannot be done if a debate with the totality of the French people is rejected. For it is clear that a debate within parliament alone or narrow circles such as the Constitutional Council is not sufficient for such a matter.

In recent history, there have been laws passed that were repealed or never applied.

For this law to be repealed, we call on all French citizens to mobilize more than ever before: Sunday, May 26, their presence is absolutely necessary. Not one Frenchman conscious of the scandal of this law can fail to respond to the appeal!

After that, we will continue without respite to defend marriage between a man and a woman, filiation of the father-mother-child, and the family: basic cell of all societies, a place for solidarity par excellence, a source of all human and economic wealth of society.

Whatever happens, the flame of French resistance must not be extinguished and will not be extinguished: it is summoned to become stronger and to deploy itself further. It will continue to build this dam which, alone, will stop the wave of plans that are doing harm to children, parents , families, to the education of the young, in other words, to the general interest, the future of society, democracy, the values of the French Republic, and respect for Man.

The battle lost today will be but a step towards Victory!

Future generations are counting on us.

We will never give up, never, never, never!

Vive la France!

Welfare extended - to immigrants

Marine Le Pen reacts to an Appeals Court decision regarding subsidies to children residing in France but born elsewhere. At the same time she points out that subsidies to French families are being cut:

A decision by the Appeals Court on April 5 extends to all children of immigrants the benefit of subsidies as part of the family policy entitlement. The court based its decision on agreements worked out by the European Union with Turkey and Algeria that forbid member States of the EU to require a document proving the legal entry of children into France, and - in particular for those children coming in under family reunification - a medical certificate issued by the French Office of Integration and Immigration, as conditions for receiving public assistance. Polygamous fathers residing on French territory can henceforth, legally, finance the needs of all their children in France. This decision comes at a time when the government is drastically reducing family subsidies to certain French families based on their income, a measure that will not only affect well-to-do families, but also an important part of the middle class.

It is striking to realize that immigration is the only area where a reduction in State and public expenditures is never envisaged! While the French people make more and more sacrifices in the name of an austerity policy that is strangling the working and middle classes, the most scandalous expenses linked to immigration are never questioned. Such is the case not only in the area of family entitlements, that will benefit polygamous families, but in National Health Care as well, since the AME (State Medical Assistance) is costing the Nation more and more while coverage for the French is forever diminishing and the cost of premiums rising.

This unnatural situation is the consequence of the insane European policies to which the French political class has submitted for years. The agreement between the EU and Algeria for example, signed in 2001 and implemented in 2005, that formed the basis for the Appeals Court's decision, has never been questioned by the UMP or the Socialists; on the contrary, it has been welcomed by governments of both left and right. Now it is a veritable troika UMP-PS-EU that we must denounce: the association of these three accomplices is having disastrous consequences for France and the French people.

This decision by the Appeals Court justifies two important propositions of Marine Le Pen's platform: a return to the primacy of national law, and the implementation of a policy of national priority, particularly in the area of family subsidies.

One reader at Le Salon Beige responds:

- It is urgent that we leave the European Commission that denies countries the right to decide for themselves. Viviane Reding, vice president of the European Commission declared to our National Assembly: "You must slowly but surely understand that there are no more internal national policies. There are only European policies shared in a common sovereignty." No reaction from our deputies, senators or president.

Marine Le Pen Injured

Marine Le Pen was seriously injured in a fall last week but the news has just been released to the press. There is some confusion over her condition because she has made television appearances since the accident, therefore she could not have broken her back. It appears to be a fractured sacrum that resulted from a fall in an empty swimming pool. Exactly how the accident happened is not clear.  Sarcastic readers' comments at Le Monde and even at le Figaro are a reminder that the animosity towards her has not slackened. Here is part of a report from Le Point:

It was Jean-Marie Le Pen who announced the news during a meeting in Limoges where he replaced the president of the Front National. "Marine could not come, because she has been the victim of a rather serious accident that is preventing her from going out. She fell in her empty pool and fractured her spinal column," explained Mr. Le Pen as an introduction to his speech in a municipal auditorium.

The president of the Front National tried to be reassuring when she posted on Twitter: "No panic! Fractured sacrum last week-end, it will be long and painful but nothing terrible! MLP."

The accident, which occurred a week ago, has forced Mme Le Pen to limit her travels, but does not prevent her from participating in meetings and making television appearances.

In a communiqué, the Front National confirmed that Marine Le Pen is suffering form a fractured sacrum that "will lead to a slight reduction in her schedule, but will not prevent her from continuing her activities." It "reassures the party members about the state of her health and thanks them for the many messages of sympathy that were addressed to her."

(…)

Note: A medical website explains:

 - Treatment for a sacral fracture may include rest, a donut pillow, narcotic pain medications, and nonsteroidal medications for pain. Surgery may be required to treat a severe sacral fracture.

Speedy recovery, Marine, France needs you! According to a poll conducted by the Huffington Post, a majority of Frenchmen believe that Marine Le Pen is better able to solve the problem of crime than either Nicolas Sarkozy or François Hollande. Below, the results showing that 31% of those questioned place their faith in Marine:

Taubira's Law is Constitutional

This will be the week that was. Next Sunday, May 26, the Manif Pour Tous will once again, assuming the weather is favorable, bring out huge crowds of protesters in an all-out effort to demand the repeal of Taubira's law. But the law has been judged constitutional by the Constitutional Council in a decision rendered on May 17. A decision that was expected but dreaded. Le Figaro reports:

The Constitutional Council validated the law authorizing marriage and adoption for homosexual couples, emphasizing nonetheless that the wording of the law does not recognize a "right to a child". Rather, the "interests of the child" must be the principle adhered to in any adoption agreement.

The "Wise Men" have determined that marriage was not contrary to "any constitutional principle": "This ruling affects neither the fundamental rights and freedoms, nor national sovereignty, nor the organization of public authority" and "cannot therefore constitute a fundamental principle," added the Council in its decision.

Note: The members of the Council are called "les Sages" ("Wise Men").

The Council made one stipulation: that henceforth the constitutional requirement of the "interests of the child" be applied in the granting of adoption by the general councils and in the decisions on adoption rendered by the courts.

Note: This means the "interests of the child" must be considered. It is almost a hint to the authorities not to allow adoption. At the very least it permits them to deny an adoption if they have doubts about the potential parents. But this must be true in any adoption, even one by a traditional couple.

On May 17, Christian Taubira visited Lyon and was greeted by noisy opponents. The video below shows the event:

The abject government of François Hollande

Catholic writer Bernard Antony demands the resignation of François Hollande following the post-soccer mayhem on Sunday that tore up the Champs-Elysées and the Trocadéro, leaving many people wounded and terrorized, and businesses destroyed.

All Frenchmen were able to see for themselves last night on every television channel the extent of abjection and ridicule that characterize Mr. Hollande's government, his minister of the Interior, his minister of Justice, as well as the grotesque posturing of the prefect of Paris.

Clearly, it is easier to use the riot police and mobile guards and hordes of cops in civilian clothes to repress the peaceful demonstrators of the Manif Pour Tous, by spraying women and children with dangerous tear gas. But the latter, in the eyes of the gang of sans-culottes who claim to govern us, were, it is true, guilty of crimes such as holding small pennants or flags on the end of derisory wooden sticks.

Those demonstrators never broke anything, never smashed windows, never burned cars. They were mistreated by the hundreds, apprehended, held in custody and even, for some, thrown in jail for two days for no reason at all.

We even watched as wretched executors of disgraceful orders, decked out in their armor everywhere, gleefully beat mothers in front of their children.

Last night it was a completely different ball game! To celebrate the victory of an athletic team, formerly Parisian but now owned by the Islamist State of Qatar, the fauna of thugs came to the party, in accordance with their usage and customs! And then, after hours of pillaging or setting fires, at their discretion, the eight hundred valiant cohorts of the Republic of Hollande, Valls, and Taubira, only managed to make twenty-one arrests!

True, those hooded young people were not "fascists" guilty of defending the family through reactionary acts as serious as pushing baby carriages with little French babies inside. Furthermore, last night we saw and heard at length the distinguished vice-president of SOS-Racism in charge of sports, the ineffable Hermann Ebongue, with his Afro coiffure artistically braided and his awkward speech, express his understanding of the cause of the "ultras" and at the same time his gratitude to Qatar. (Bizarre, you said bizarre?)

Note: I know little about Hermann Ebongue and nothing of the television appearance referred to. There is a photo of him here, minus the corn rows. "Ultras" must refer to the vandals and thugs.

The truth is that for Hermann Ebongue and his richly subsidized association, no more than for Lady Taubira, there is little cause for concern over a barbaric rampage obviously engendered by the most total racist contempt for France and the French.

AGRIF, of course, demands the dismissal of the prefect of Paris and also, because of their ever-increasing failures, of the ministers of the Interior and Justice. But the most necessary decision would be the one that Mr. François Hollande ought to make in the interests of France and his own interests: to resign, without waiting for it to become unavoidable.

Note: AGRIF, founded by Bernard Antony, provides legal support and aid to those ethnic Frenchmen and Catholics who are victims of discrimination and/or anti-white racism.

At the top, one of several photos from Le Parisien of the violent confrontations on May 12.

Below, a photo of two tourist buses attacked by thugs. From François Desouche.

Note: I will have to try to clarify a few things later. I had assumed all the violence took place Sunday night, but it seems the attacks at le Trocadéro (near the Eiffel Tower) took place on Monday afternoon. These were the attacks that involved tourist buses.

Some readers have suggested that this week-end's rampage was part of a pre-programmed attack on France by Islamic forces, and other enemies of France. Manuel Valls has ridiculously tried to compare the violence to the incidents that have occurred during the Manif Pour Tous. For him there is no difference. (Actually, there IS a difference: the Manif is much worse in his way of thinking, but he cannot quite bring himself to say that publicly.)

The passive, unperturbed, unmovable indifference at the highest level of government today is not very different from the passive unperturbed complacency of President Jacques Chirac and Prime Minister Dominique de Villepin in 2005 when the ghettos rampaged for days on end (October 27 - November 17 approx.), setting the stage for all future rampages, accelerating the Islamization of France, and forever paralyzing the police, under permanent orders to treat the vandals gently. Over nine thousand cars were burned, and Seine-Saint-Denis became more famous than the Latin Quarter. Below a map showing the "hot spots" of the 2005 riots. At the time, Nicolas Sarkozy was minister of the Interior.

Pillaging the heart of Paris...

The violence that followed the PSG victory on Sunday was worse than previously thought. Here is a communiqué from Marine Le Pen:

On the occasion of the celebration of the PSG championship, rampaging thugs pillaged the heart of Paris.

Barbarians with no connection to the fans left a countless number of victims: residents, merchants, tourists.

This raid committed with impunity was nonetheless predictable. It is the consequence of the impoverished mind of Interior Minister Manuel Valls, who should have banned this gathering, considering the eruptions that had taken place the night before. The problem with this minister is that, like his pathetic predecessors of the UMP, he cultivates a veritable State-sponsored policy of laxness.

Note: I have no information on what happened the night before.

These urban riots are a reminder that nothing has changed since those of 2005, and that France is seated on a volcano: at any moment, the situation can explode and extreme violence can be unleashed at innocent people.

It is clearly no longer possible to organize even the smallest event in the large French cities. The population is at the mercy of thugs who, far from being neutralized, have been assiduously protected by the ideological convictions of successive governments of both the right and left.

Marine Le Pen urges a revolt against this gangrene: we must prevail and apply zero tolerance against these thugs who feel they can do as they please on our territory.

Below, a short video, posted at François Desouche, showing some of the mayhem. In the beginning you see a yellow tourist bus that was attacked near the Eiffel Tower. The announcer says the vandals come in to pillage from the outskirts of Paris every time there is a popular event. There were dozens of wounded, numerous arrests and much damage done. The Paris prefect has announced that the PSG soccer team will no longer be allowed to celebrate in public.

Note: The team, per se, was not responsible. But the prefect has chosen to blame them instead of naming as guilty the thugs from the suburbs.

Reports also indicate that there were hardly any CRS (riot police) on the scene, especially at Trocadéro, near the Eiffel Tower, at the outset, but their numbers had increased greatly by the time the rioting was over. Therefore, some of the violence could have been prevented if there had been adequate security.

Ramage on the Champs-Elysées

If you read my preceding post you know that twenty persons who were doing nothing wrong were arrested on the Champs-Elysées a few days ago. In contrast, a violent rampage erupted on the same avenue Sunday night following the soccer victory of the PSG (Paris-Saint-Germain), but according to 24matins, the police dispersed the crowd. No mention is made here of arrests (see below for more).

Sunday evening many fans went to the Champs-Elysées to celebrate the victory of the PSG as champions of France, its first championship in nineteen years. But the crowds soon became disruptive: store fronts were smashed and there were confrontations with police. Vandals had mixed in with the fans and started trouble. Motor bikes were damaged, trash cans turned upside down and windows broken. The CRS (riot police) were there and intervened to disperse the crowds.

Note: The report is noticeably succinct and bland, as if this were no major event.

However, turn to François Desouche and you'll get another view of things. The photos below are examples:

And this short video gives an idea of the crowds and the noise, although violence is not obvious here. The France 2 journalist narrating says: 

"You have to forgive their excesses because they have been waiting for this for such long time…":



Twenty-one persons were eventually arrested including three vandals. Two of them had smashed windows and committed gang robbery, and the third had set fires.

Finally, a reminder that this PSG soccer team is owned by Qatar. It's one of many French institutions either owned outright or partially by the Emirate.

Arbitrary Arrests

Le Salon Beige reported the following on May 8:

About twenty persons, calmly walking on the Champs-Elysées this evening, without banners or slogans, were arrested by the police. No motive was given when they were forced to get into the police bus, not even that of illegal assembly. It seems to have been an arbitrary arrest, the crime of looking honest!

With no explanation, wallets and cell phones were confiscated. Some of the young persons were taken off the bus. No one knew why. Sixteen persons were then left in the bus. The police chief of the 16th arrondissement gave no reason for the arrests.

Note: At this point LSB gives two phone numbers for those who wish to call the police.

Three persons were taken to the Châtelet headquarters. We repeat that there was nothing distinctive about them. A lawyer was contacted. Eight persons were sent to police headquarters in the 16th arrondissement. The others were sent to different destinations!

Some opponents of Taubira's law immediately went to Châtelet to demand an explanation.

Below, the captives inside the bus:

Note: LSB posted an update on May 9:

Having shown their ID's, they were all released after three or four hours of arbitrary detention. Lawsuits are being initiated.

Note: There are no fewer than 84 comments to this article with references to gulags, Stalin, Himmler, etc… as well as reports by those readers who took the time to call the police. It seems the stressed-out police are confused and beginning to lose their self-control.

- Our country is being transformed into a dictatorship. Thank you for giving us news of this matter. I hope that complaints will be filed and that our deputies will react. If we don't react to this abuse of power it will get worse. If the people are anesthetized, the cat will be set among the pigeons.

- Is this the Gulag Archipelago? It sounds vey much like Alexander Solzhenitsyn. An arbitrary arrest, then ten years in the camp! Holland is the worst kind of Stalinist. He is not legitimate. (…)

- Everyone who called the police at Châtelet report that they are jittery I cannot judge myself but it confirms that the men are tense. The tension has been going on for seven long months in unusual circumstances. Clearly things can move rapidly because police blunders are multiplying, which is a sign of weakness. The fruit is ripe.

Surprisingly, Le Figaro also reported the story, giving a much wider audience access to news of the arrests, and underscoring the tremendous effect the protest movement is having on the media, the police and (we can assume) the powers that be. According to this article, a spokesman for the prefect admitted that they had spotted a young person wearing the Manif Pour Tous sweatshirt. The twenty young persons were arrested because they were dangerously close to Elysée Palace:

"They separated into two groups: one group was blocked at the rond-point des Champs-Elysées, another was arrested on avenue Gabriel."

"For two or three weeks, we have performed similar actions," justified the prefect's spokesman. "The day before yesterday, for example, they blocked rue de Rivoli for ten minutes. About fifteen of them were arrested. We're just doing our job: we cannot allow young persons to walk twenty yards from Elysée Palace".

Le Figaro has no fewer than 364 comments! These too make references to places like Uzbekistan, North Korea, and other "democracies". Many note that on May 26, date of the next massive demonstration, the police will have a hard time arresting everyone wearing a Manif sweatshirt.